But theres no sensible reason why the defense attorney would know that he's corrupt ... he might know that he's lying in this particular case but as David Simon (the journalist at the baltimore sun who wrote a year long biography of the baltimore homicide unit) tells us "everyone lies, perps lie because they have to, witnesses lie because they think they have to, everyone else lies for the sheer hell of it" So the defense attorney might write down this guys a lying scumbag , but how would that help your MC ? - its not like the defedant is going to suddenly tell the defense lawyer that hes got a cop , this cop, on his/her/its payroll
Okay thanks. I thought the defendant would tell his lawyer that the corrupt is corrupt, cause he thinks it might help give a better defense. Like he might say to his lawyer "the one witness who is called to testify. He was there when I committed the 'so and so crime', etc. He is on collusion with me". I thought he might say that so the lawyer would know in order to give a better defense, and get some ideas of what questions to ask to deter the situation and help the client possibly.
given that we've said about 9 times that he wouldnt tell his lawyer he was guilty , hesdhardly goiing to tell him he colluded with a cop
Well at first when I wrote it I thought that he would tell his lawyer that he is guilty, cause I thought it was a protected conversation and any confession would therefore be immune from prosecution. But now that we have established that is not the case with the law, I am not sure, if the client would say that or not.
Just read the damn thread (and all the others like it ) - its already been explained clearly and concisely several times that an asttorney isnt allowed to knowingly mislead the court ... ergo he can't represent his client as innocent if the client has told him that he's guilty. Go ask an attorney (or several) - preferably real ones not the make believe ones who you supposedly asked about whether hearsay is adnissable evidence
Well I didn't think that all lawyers would follow the rule, of representing innocent clients only, especially if he is being well payed. I mean when the police arrest a suspect and give him/her the paper forum explaining what the suspect's right to a lawyer are, it does not say on the form that legally, they do not have the right to an attorney, if they tell the lawyer they are guilty. And the lawyer would not have to mislead the court, he would just have to avoid asking the corrupt cop certain questions. Is avoiding certain questions misleading a court? Well either way, I can just write it so that the MC finds about out about the cop's corruption another way then.
